Both art and science depend upon “the creative process”. Now we must rely on our collective creative process if we are to discover/invent/enable a new way of living that will do so much more than merely sustain us as we leave the old ideas of the industrial 20th century behind.

Married to an epidemiologist, I am often stunned by the uncanny similarities in our professional worlds. While the art world is driven by the profit engine, depending on the market value to determine what art is worth remembering or exhibiting, the current world of science is also driven by profit. Studies are funded by corporations and if the results say the product causes harm, it can not be published. How is this good science?

The first two steps in the scientific method are observation and hypothesis. Hypothesis is essentially a creative activity. Artists use imagination to synthesize new things and new views that make us think and stimulate our imagination. This is a higher level of creativity because the artist not only synthesizes but also freely chooses the things to be input to the synthesis. The scientist must limit observation to that which exists in external reality. The artist has no such restriction. The hypothesis must attempt to explain the observed reality. The creative synthesis of the artist has no such restriction. Where they come together is in enlarging the arena for hypothesis even if not supported by observation because this shows us where to look and eventually we discover facts in reality to support what seemed to be mere unsupported speculation. Artists are almost universally good at this. Few scientists are, but those who are become outstanding in their fields. Outstanding artists tend also to be accomplished in some areas of the arts and this is not surprising.
The two remaining steps in the scientific method are experiment and law. Experiments are designed to either prove or disprove the hypothesis. Law is the establshing of general rules that can be applied in understanding and dealing with natural reality.

Paul, Thank you for this precise insight into the relationship between observation, synthesis, and limitations in the different modes of production in art and science. I am curious about your background. Are you a scientist?

elin–yes its important not to idealize science, to leave it in a hallowed insular world of objectivity… I will say that many of the scientists involved with arctic research that I have met have a passion, and dedication to the site that I think drives their practice… But of course there is much arctic science funded by the military, oil corporations, etc. There should me more information in this project about the military influences…

I recently read this quote from Walter Benjamin’s article “The Author as Producer” in a great paper by an artist posing questions about engagement in corporate systems as well as maintaining an artist studio (Hope Ginsberg):

Instead of asking: what is the
attitude of a work to the relations of production of its time? Does it accept them? Is it
reactionary—or does it aim at overthrowing them? Is it revolutionary?-instead of this
question, or at any rate before this question, I should like to propose another. Rather
than asking: what is the attitude of a work to the relations of production of its time? I
should like to ask: what is its position in them?”

questions from the first half of the twentiech century still or more urgent today!

If this profit engine often leads to questionable science, would it also lead to questionable art?

for my own part i’m not certain that one can distiguish the creativity of forming hypothesis as higher or lower than the work in imagination of the artist. i have more come to believe that that when (and it is somewhat rare) creativity enters into art, it is the same paradigm shifting which occurs when a scientist clearly perceives forces hidden below the surface of things. (e.i. einstien realizing that time is not a constant force in the universe but rather the nature of the speed of light is what is constant.) when art has an impact it is in many ways due to an identical quality of perception on the part of the artist regarding the forces at work in human nature in specific and humanity (to a greater or lesser extent) as a whole.
i would most highly recommend physicist David Bohm’s book ON Creativity, whose first two chapters explore the nature of creativity , and the ways in which work of the artist and scientist are both interlinked and of the greatest importance to humanity.

as an inhabitant of a major island city on the northeast seacoast of the u s of a i have experienced 50 years of private & public art. there have always been at least two major schools: academic & non-academic. both have produced profound art – however the language with which the critics of said schools describe these types of expression varies greatly. the academic critics are a bit verbose & dry while the non-academic are a bit terse & wet.

concept art i find to be more of the academic school. it’s like making art out of a description of an artifact.

because there has been a steady acceleration in the technology of personal use many artists have been given brand new tools for their artistic expression. an inherent quality of technology is scientific as an inherent quality of art is skill. are scientists skillful? do artists use tools? art can contain science just as science can contain art.

blogs by definition are built up thru the effort of people willing to share their two cents about anything. does length make art? do hits make product? does product make fame? does fame make art a science?

It’s interesting, when I teach my biological oceanography class I have my students create a model of a imaginary sea creature. I frequently get asked why I do this “as science isn’t about imagination or creativity”. I always respond that scientist do need alot of creativity, to design new equipment or new experiments. To interpret data and to see relationships. Many accomplished scientists are also musicians or artists.

The question for me is, does making art about climate change ever get beyond preaching to the choir? Is it possible that art can play a role in changing the minds of those who continue to reject the scientific evidence? How can art make a difference, where a photo of environmental devastation, can not?

This is one of the top three questions I get asked about my current work. I struggle with the answer which is so complex. So I’ve asked your same question to some of the other artists posting on this site to see what they have to say. check out their comments in the next couple of days (today is Sunday 2/4)

Young children quickly realize connections between art and science.An art work that goes with a science concept only adds to the excitement of a new discovery.We constantly make observations even as tiny babies. Isn’t it grand that we can express our interpreted observation through art -only to be interpreted by another observer.

Hello.

I am Master of architecture thesis student in Boston. I am trying to put
together a thesis panel for my architectural project. The project is
a rehab/research center for polar bears in Churchill, Canada. The
architectural project is to develop new methods of designing and
building in a climate that is continuously changing. I am looking for
scientists/artists or climatologists in the Boston area who have an interest
in global warming and environmental changes in the arctic to be on my
panel to help with discussions. I also need a hypothical client.
It is a not a big time commitment involved, my thesis project runs
until Dec. If this sounds like something you may be interested I would
be honored, if not do you have any ideas or leads of people who you
feel may be better suited or interested. It is all ready turning into a
fun, rewarding project.

Thank You,

Monica Skinner

mskinner6@
hotmail.com

mskinner@
sbra.com